From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF57D6B01CD for ; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 02:20:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.12]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o596Kkcf012229 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:20:46 -0700 Received: from pvg2 (pvg2.prod.google.com [10.241.210.130]) by hpaq12.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o596KiH4008111 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:20:45 -0700 Received: by pvg2 with SMTP id 2so1850914pvg.16 for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 23:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 23:20:40 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 01/14] slab: Introduce a constant for a unspecified node. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100521211452.659982351@quilx.com> <20100521211537.530913777@quilx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Ingo Molnar List-ID: On Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: > As I said, we can probably get away with that in slab.git because > we're so small but that doesn't work in general. > > If we ignore the fact how painful the actual rebase operation is > (there's a 'sleb/core' branch that shares the commits), I don't think > the revised history is 'cleaner' by any means. The current patches are > known to be good (I've tested them) but if I just replace them, all > the testing effort was basically wasted. So if I need to do a > git-bisect, for example, I didn't benefit one bit from testing the > original patches. > > The other issue is patch metadata. If I just nuke the existing > patches, I'm also could be dropping important stuff like Tested-by or > Reported-by tags. Yes, I realize that in this particular case, there's > none but the approach works only as long as you remember exactly what > you merged. > > There are probably other benefits for larger trees but those two are > enough for me to keep my published branches append-only. > I wasn't really trying to suggest an alternative way to do it for all git trees, I just thought that since Christoph wanted to repropose these changes in another set and given there's no harm in doing it within slab.git right now that you'd have no problem making an exception in this case just for a cleaner history later. If you'd like to keep a commit that is then completely obsoleted by another commit when it's on the tip of your tree right now and could be reverted with minimal work simply to follow this general principle, that's fine :) > > Let me know if my suggested changes should be add-on patches to > > Christoph's first five and I'll come up with a three patch series to do > > just that. > > Yes, I really would prefer incremental patches on top of the > 'slub/cleanups' branch. > Ok then, I'll send incremental changes based on my feedback of patches 1-5. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org